The most dangerous thing in Britain is the nothing-to-lose Labour Party

The Brown bounce is over.  The latest opinion poll points to a massive Labour defeat.  In today's Independent, Matthew Taylor, former head of strategy to Tony Blair, is recommending that Labour accepts defeat honourably considers putting politics aside even if that leads to defeat.  But that thought doesn't seem to be uppermost in the mind of Alistair Darling.  This morning's Guardian reports that the Chancellor "has accepted that a second emergency package of tax and spending measures may be needed in this spring's budget to claw the economy out of a deepening recession."  The first package may have been an expensive flop but that's not a concern to the kamikaze politicians inside the Downing Street bunker.

As blogged before, the nothing-to-lose Labour Party is now the most dangerous thing in Britain.  If Brown throws more money at Britain's problems he hopes against experience that his opinion poll position might just improve.  But he also knows that the incoming Conservative government will inherit nightmare levels of borrowing if this profligacy has no effect.  David Cameron will spend at least one parliament rescuing a sinking ship of state.

This is nothing short of massive economic vandalism.

Tim Montgomerie

Comments

[Old Hack]

Hence the need to step up the pressure for a General Election.

At the moment Labour still believes it has the luxury of 16 months of government during which time something may turn up.

Let's deny them as best we can the luxury of time. Let's force them to start fighting the next General Election now.

The quicker we get shot of them, the better we'll all be.

What about a vote of no confidence? Let's flush them out and challenge their mandate. Let's force the other parties to put their cards on the table as well.

[Malcolm Dunn]

Doubt with their majority a vote of confidence will achieve anything.
My opinion? Stop looking for sound bites, 'Brown is responsible for bust etc'and offer a coherent alternative policy.

[rugfish]

They can take the honourable way to put the country first by holding an election, and recognise that the country comes first. Or, they can go on until they are forced to hold an election, and be seen to have cynically thought of themselves before the people of this country who seek change.

They can show humility and pride by walking upright, and stand a chance to be given a compassionate judgment. Or, they can be dragged to their deaths at the poll booths, screaming like stuck pigs.

If I was Brown, I'd have gone for an election the instant Tony Blair 'gave me the job', as I am a democrat and I'd know I had no other way to hold that position unless I were able to convince the public to support me. He has not gained support he's lost it. His time is well up therefore and he should have the decency and the honour to call it a day for the sake of this nation which he's smashed up.

It brings me to recall a couple of others from 30 years ago.

A couple of my favourite quotes are:

One: Prime Minister James Callaghan in 1979, who'd struggled with strike actions and a faltering British economy, was asked what he thought of the situation. He replied:-

"When I'm shaving in the morning, I often look in the mirror and think if I were a young man I would emigrate".

So despaired was he with Britain in the late 70's, which many thought impossible to turn around.

Then a new star arose called Margaret Thatcher who was asked the same question, and she said:-

"I can't bear Britain in decline, I just can't. We, who either defeated or rescued half Europe. Who kept half Europe free when otherwise it would be in chains, and look at us now".

She had a steely determination to "Put things right", and she did exactly what she said she'd do.

Britain was once again the Land of Hope and Glory with Mrs Thatcher as its Prime Minister, and I guess it began to slide downhill again from there as she tackled the unions. The rest, as they say, is history........and now we're in a similar position once more under another Labour government, where again Britain needs revolutionary change in order to bring it back to strength again.

I guess we'll have to wait to see whether we will see another politician with Mrs Thatcher's capability, her fighting spirit and her determination. Someone who is able enough to "Put things right" like she did, which only Mrs Thatcher the once in only a lifetime Prime Minister, could ever manage to do so successfully.

******"But look at us now"******

Now there's a challenge for someone I think, but his name is not Gordon Brown.

Incidentally, Mrs Thatcher's stance on Europe could not be improved. The masses supported her position and it's well time we got back to it.

[rugfish]

Sorry I wanted to add.

All Shadow Ministers should say we want a General Election EVERY chance they get.

In this way, Brown will become isolated and will be seen as a scared and power hungry guy who is completely alien to the rest of the country.

[matthew taylor]

In fairness (to me) I didn't recommend Labour should accept honorable defeat. Actually, I argued that Labour's best tactic to win might be to try to rise above the political skirmish in 2009 in the hope that things improve in 2010. One advantage of this strategy is that if Labour is bound to lose it would at least do so with honour

[Tim Montgomerie]

I've amended my piece Matthew and advise readers to take a look at your full article in The Indy.

[sjm]

'Rise above the political skirmish'?

Eh? What on earth does that mean?

[pp]

In the years to come, as a party, Labour will have to completely disown browns premiership and everything to do with it.

The tories need to start ensuring that this wont outflank them.

To be seen as a party that just stood and watched while browns death throws destroyed the economy would be fatal.

The tories must call for Brown to go now to Save Britain. He is the biggest threat to the UK today. To do anything else will be seen as to be almost complicit in that destruction, and leave the tories open to charges of gloating over this destruction for the benefit it brings them as a party.

For now, forget the banks, credit crunch, mortgages etc (we aren't going to starve) - Brown is a greater danger than all of these things, he is selling us and several future generations into servitude to pay for the collosal debts he is running up - he must be stopped now...

The british public will put up with some pain if it is for a better future - but brown is just prolonging the pain with no end in sight.

[Tony the Tory]

Absolutely correct!

I have been explaining this to people on the doorstep for a while now. It really is a serious risk and could even restrict us to one term if the public don't understand what is going on.

Much of what Maggie had to do was as consequence of Jim Callaghan's/Dennis Healey's incompetence in office.

Brown and Darling are prepared to mortgage the future of my grandson to lose by a narrower margin.

Hopefully the front bench will emphasise this at every opportunity

[Peter Thurgood]

If you don't feel sad enough already, with what Labour have done to our country, please have a look here....it's funny, but not funny enough to stop a tear or two.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCwW_1rswyo

[rugfish]

After reading the article:

"Authenticity" is a word described in the Labour dictionary, as "spin". It has an entirely different meaning to these people and only the most stubborn die hard Labourite would be fooled by such a ploy. Change means change. It doesn't mean "call off the political dog fighting", it means change. Change can not be brought about by Labour simply because they would have to undo most if not all of their policies todate on Europe, the Economy and their more general internal policies which have already changed this country into a heap of something we none of us recognise. Thus, in undoing itself, it would in essence be admitting that it had gotten it all wrong. ( How can Gordon Brown now say that we'll have a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty ), how can he say we'll un-ban smoking in pubs, how can he cancel the VAT reduction, how can he reverse 11 years of promoting immigration and advertising "our jobs overseas". How can he now look clean on expenses when his party has been anything but. How can he place new ministers into his cabinet which command the country's respect, rather than the idiots they have now which came straight from university into his office and were placed into pole positions to an unsuspecting electorate. How can he reverse his stupid decision to banish the Bank of England's oversight from financial markets and replace it with an incompetent and untrained FSA and all its over the top bureaucracy, EU Directives and culture of penalties and fines which go with it. Short answer is he can't do these things because he'll be admitting he's a fool.

Best thing for him to do therefore, is to admit that he is not placed to choose for this nations interests but that the people themselves are. He should call a general election for our sake and not hang on aimlessly and hopelessly for his own sake.

As for "green shoots" in the spring of 2010, forget it. Firstly, America's green shoots must come first and we'll be a full year behind them. Secondly, we cannot go back to what we had as that was an illusion created by illusionary credit. This is to all intents and purposes dead now for the world not just here but everywhere. People have woken up to it and they now have the power as consumers and savers, and without their confidence it will never change. It cannot change whilst Brown removes their confidence so he has to go. Then when people are confident and when they have a market to sell into again and when America's economy is under repair, we can change it, but it will take a revolutionary change and a reversal of many of the things Brown and Blair have done on the back of the credit bubble which Brown maintains was not his problem. He should admit it to himself and then the country can move on with him and his Labour cronies out the way. He can then say "what matters now is not the political skirmish but the battle against the economic crisis" after he's admitted being the cause of it.

[Susan]

Of course it's "massive vandalism" and the blogosphere has been warning of their economic scorched earth policy for more than a year. As for Labour losing with honour intact I think the chance of them retaining any honour whatsoever was blown years ago.

[resident leftie]

The opposition always think they are hard done by if the government don't call an election. This situation is no different. I don't blame them for corwing.

However, to suggest that the government is doing anything other than its level best to help Britain through the world recession shows your mind set. You genuinely believe that Gordon Brown and others would deliberately damage the country to make things difficult for the Tories in goverment. That's utter nonsense. They will do their best. If anything, I hope that opinion polls give them the courage to pursue the genuine social democratic policies which would have lessened the effect of the world recession in Britain at least, instead of supinely allowing the time bomb which was Tory deregulation and the Big Bang to tick away. They are progressive in terms of spending, but not in terms of finance.

With minor exceptions, the front bench Tories have been in complete support of the goverment's economic policy since the bank bail-out last year, so succesful or not, the Tories will have no one to blame.

After years and years of economic growth, investment in education, health and infrastucture, we are having a recession. We'll be out of it in two years, and it won't have been as bad as it could have been thanks to Labour economic policies (supported by the Tories).

Most of this is irrelevant; your carrion cries for an election will not be heeded, there'll be an election in May 2010 and when the recovery begins, as it will regardless, it will be under a Tory government.

[walsall ladette]

Careful what you wish for!

[William Blake's Ghost]

Resident Leftie:

'They will do their best'

They have already done their 'best'. They have wrecked this country.

If Labour did what was best for the country they would self-euthanise their sick twisted organisation (but not the people within it).

Even now your lunatic leader is wittering on about global this and global that, when there are increasing numbers of people they are supposed to represent losing their jobs, having their possessions and homes repossessed and their lives ruined.

Basically he and your dreadful party just haven't got a clue!

[Old Hack]

Malcolm

I know Labour's majority means they'd cling on, but that is not the point.

The point is that we need to ramp up the pressure on Labour.

Look at it this way, how differently is Labour being treated right now to the way the Conservatives would be treated if we had been in power for the last 11 years?

My suspicion is that there is a great deal of anger and contempt for this Labour Government that can and should be harnessed.

We should be seen to be TRYING to get them out, not just playing a waiting game and scoring points at PMQs.

[The Huntsman]

Some might think that the most dangerous thing in Britain at any given moment is the Labour party in power, let alone a Labour party with nothing to lose in anticipation of electoral oblivion. But let us leave that to one side for a moment.

Brown is not now going to have a GE until he is dragged kicking and screaming to the ballot box. The last lawful date for one is 3 June 2010, subject to him proclaiming his mess a national emergency and suspending the Constitution.

Pencil it in now, people.

Let us therefore try and seek any silver linings there might be to this particular cloud.

It is not unreasonable to think that at that moment we shall still be in the grip of of the very worst recession this country has experienced in the lives of most of us.

That being so it is also not unreasonable to anticipate that today's 15% lead over Labour might have been extended well into the 20+% range.

In such circumstances we may see parts of Labour's core vote deserting it and its share of the overall vote falling below even that it obtained in 1931, the last election to be held in circumstances akin to the present.

Then it got 30.8%.

If it now fell to 25 or 24%, comparable give modern electoral arithmetic and geography, we might hope to achieve a plurality of the votes for the first time since 1931, the only occasion under universal adult suffrage when this has happened.

Lest one doubt this as a possibility, one should note (a) that Labour only has to fall a further 4% to meet that possibility and (b) the LibDems & 'others' are likely to be squeezed and squeezed hard as the witching hour of an election approaches and the most important election since 1979 concentrates the electorate's mind on the hard choices that have to be made and voters feel less inclined to waste their vote.

That might thus give us a majority of around 300 which, if taken with winning a plurality of votes, would give an incoming Tory government enormous power and authority which might be used to undertake some reforms at which it might baulk in other circumstances.

Thus a further 17 months of this truly awful shower might well do considerable damage but would give us the chance of a lengthy period in office to set in train radical reforms, just as we did under Margaret Thatcher, that are of a long-term nature and of long-term benefit, unlike the chronically short-termist and electorally-calculated measures of Blair and McStalin.

For example, a root & branch reform of parliament and electoral geography (so that, for a change, an Englishman's vote might be worth the same as a Welshman's or a Scot's, a countryman's the same as a townie's, a suburbanite's the same as that of the denizen of the inner city) and a culling of numbers might be achieved and prove very difficult to undo, politically, in future. This can be done in the context of wider Parliamentary reforms, the need for which this weekend's Sleazebag Labour peer's scandal has pointed up.

Readers may have other areas where a government thus empowered might do things that would be difficult with a small majority (let us have some ideas, people!).

So, whilst having the Nincompoops in charge into next year may prove deeply damaging, the extent of the damage will help justify some genuinely radical Tory measures that might last for generations.

In addition we might also see the effacing of Labour from the chance of power. After the depression of the 1930s it is arguable that Labour was saved by the war, during which it was able to be part of a National Government and be seen to act responsibly. This time around it will not, hopefully, have such a lifebelt thrown into the sea.

Let us remember, therefore, to think of the long-term as well as the short, and see this present crisis not so much as a disaster but also as an opportunity.

[B.Garvie]

Brown has produced the most dysfunctional Government in history and no amount of banter from Labour supporters can hide the absolutely devastating mistakes he has made. He made catastrophic mistakes as Chancellor by smashing the pensions industry. Millions of pensioners will never forget or forgive his blatant greed.Private and company pension holders have suffered, yet his own and those of public servants are intact. So much for a fair society.

He took all the profits out of Royal Mail in 2000 after they had made consistent profits for 23 years. He tried to sell them to a Dutch competitor without success and left them a financial basket case. His Party voted for the Post Offices Services Bill ensuring thousands of local post offices were closed.Mandleson continues to try and sell to another Dutch rival putting thousands of postal workers jobs at risk.

His Party tried unsuccessfully to close Grammar schools, yet their members continue to send their children to grammar and private schools.

He has introduced over 112 stealth taxes and squandered the lot.

The country is virtually bankrupt with our children and grand children facing higher taxation to pay it off.

Brown misguidedly removed regulatory authority from the Bank of England to scrutinise other banks operating collateralised loan obligations involving sub-prime markets, which subsequently ran out of control. Substituting regulation with a newly created FSA was wholly inadequate as they lacked experience, were impotent and lacked quidance.

Brown cannot continue to blame all contagion of this credit crisis on the Americans otherwise President Obama will be most displeased. His decision to deregulate allowed bank speculation to outweigh reason and restraint. Myner's efforts to blame banks is a mere distraction to hide Brown's mistakes.

This Government are out of ideas and Brown is definitely out of time. If Brown has any credibility left, he must call a General Election soon.That is the only way confidence can be restored to our country.

[Opinicus]

Wishful thinking Huntsman, almost Brownian.

There is no evidence that CCHQ has the stomach for radical reform and even less that it has any appreciation of what reform might look like.

The larger the majority the greater the disappoinment. Blair but without the unquestioning appreciation of the media that he enjoyed.

How are we going to reform education so that we have a population with skills and knowledge not Weakest Link contestants with degrees in golf course management?

How are we going to generate national income to pay for imports?

How are we going to reduce and make efficient public expenditure?

How are we going to restore probity to public life?

How are we going to restore public faith in democracy and the political process?

[rugfish]

Brown's scare tactics are at it to win support back !!!

Enter the new "Global ( World ) Order" says Brown...

The BBC today, gives a report of Mr Brown calling for new global order and strikes the pose of saviour as if he alone has the might to save us with his narratives and soundbites which I note disparage those who would look to save our own country first in order that it is strong enough to save others.

The report goes like this;

The economic crisis should be treated as "the difficult birth-pangs of a new global order", Prime Minister Gordon Brown has said.

In a speech he promised to fight to prevent the UK and other countries retreating into protectionism.

Mr Brown called for "new rules" for international trade, warning against "pessimism" and "muddling through".

Meanwhile, the Tories will announce plans to make civil servants more "responsible" with taxpayers' money.

The UK is now officially in recession for the first time since 1991, with many businesses blaming difficulties in obtaining loans for the crisis.

Mr Brown. No one is "retreating", we are waiting to fight you in order that we can properly fight the recession here first in a world which is simultaneously suffering an economic crisis brought about about lunatics like you who think that the free market didn't need to be watched by competent people and that you could replace that competence with a bureaucratic dictator and a myriad of European directives which are worked out by lawyers without any sense of business or the markets or of the need for businesses to be flexible and not bureaucratized in a "free market".

He goes on;

'Fill the gap'

Last week the government announced a scheme to offer banks insurance against losing more money from the bad debts which started the credit crunch.

The Bank of England will also be able to buy up to £50bn worth of assets in companies in all sectors of the economy.

Addressing the Foreign Press Association in London, Mr Brown said such such measures were intended to "fill the gap" in lending.

He added: "We face a choice. We could allow this crisis to start a retreat from globalisation. "As some want, we could close our markets - for capital, financial services, trade and for labour - and therefore reduce the risks of globalisation.

"But that would reduce global growth, deny us the benefits of global trade and confine millions to global poverty. "Or we could view the threats and challenges we face today as the difficult birth-pangs of a new global order - and our task now as nothing less than making the transition through a new internationalism to the benefits of an expanding global society - not muddling through as pessimists but making the necessary adjustment to a better future and setting the new rules for this new global order."

Who is he trying to kid here with his "scare tactics"? Was the world facing utter catastrophe before you were Chancellor or after you became Chancellor? - It's a simple question so could you answer people who are interested in the answer please.

I'd also recommend an answer as to who in their right mind would seek to deliver a "global answer" to a "global problem", when the "global players" ( China, India and in particular Russia ), do not, cannot, and will not "play" the capitalist game of chance where "their own economic interests", are sold up the river by a Unipolar World - New World Global Order, which Brown keeps baying about to the detriment of all people's of the world including Iraq and Afghanistan and other places, which just happen to be in reach of the New World Order, and weak enough to invade, when they refuse to play 'global politics'.

Now could you just get back in your bunker Mr Brown, call a general election, and let the people get on with putting a stop by calling a halt to this New World Global Order which you keep banging on about as enshrined in the Lisbon Treaty and in the noise from Washington and from the likes of Strobe Talbott, so we can create peaceful trade with out neighbours in Europe after we've torn down the undemocratic changes and bureaucratic controls which you created which have killed it, and in so doing, restore peace to this world by supporting the massive world markets out there which require "freedom" and a "free market" but without the threat of being called nationalists if people pay their taxes to their own country rather than to the "protected area of the Eurozone", which is anything but a "free" market, because it's all "Global Claptrap" otherwise and a road to ruin.

[David Sergeant]

"You genuinely believe that Gordon Brown and others would deliberately damage the country to make things difficult for the Tories in goverment. That's utter nonsense"

Sorry, resident lefty you are living in the parallel universe of Brown and co. To you and them throwing money at almost anything is good, particularly trying to sort out a grotty economy. E.g. the pointless VAT reduction (which the Tories opposed) which is £12 bil and therefore must be good. And of course, since the arrival of Blair and his Mondeo Man it has dawned on you you no longer stand for anything but trying to keep the Tories out. Therefore spending gobs of tax payers money to reduce Cameron's majority is justified for all those Labour core voters who have not yet rumbled the fact that you exploit them for votes.

[The Bishop swine]

Resident lefty I am sorry but I agree with David Sergeant on this. Whilst most Labour supporters are decent types it is rarely decent types that are able to clime the slippery pole to the top (the same is true in all parties, to some extent) Prior the General election Labour will be tempted to pull out all of their ideological stops and dam the consequences. So I expect to see a lot more tax payers money being splurged on doubtful policies and a rush to continue with Labour's current Stalinist style clamp down on political dissent. Deep down Labour is not a democratic party, this was proven to me when they forced us into an unjustifiable war with Iraq. Many of us wrote to our MP's and were rewarded with a copy of the dodgy dossier for our pains. Clearly a party that is so corrupt morally that it can clime into bed with G.W.Bush, a stance that should have been ideologically impossible. Will not draw the line at damaging the national interest by draining the coffers on its way out. Worse it is clearly trying to undermine the pound so that the euro starts to look more appealing.
Labour is now using up all of the credit it can place its hands on, prudence has been bound and gagged ! Meanwhile many of the shits that Labour has placed in parliament are making money hand over fist. Don't be fooled by the likes of Brown Labour is a morally and ethically corrupt party, a bunch of godless commies ruining our country yet again.

[Steve Tierney]

Resident Leftie:-
I don't think that Gordon Brown or his government are 'deliberately trying to wreck Britain'. But I do feel that they are taking risks that they would feel were not worth chancing if it wasn't for the fact that... in the event they don't work... the Tories will have to clean up the mess.

Its not the same as being deliberately destructive just to be petty, but going "all out" on a wing and a prayer is just as dangerous in the long term.

The trouble is, if we had any faith in him whatsoever we might even back his wild gambling. But we mostly just think he's a buffoon, way out of his depth and desperately trying to survive. Nor are any of the things he's doing the "right" measures, In My Humble Opinion.

[Michael Taylor]

Goes to illustrate the point some commentator made a few weeks ago:

David Cameron doesn't have the option of being a good PM - he now has to be a great PM.

Anything less than greatness will fail us all.

[Man in a Shed]

Tim - If Labour reveal a shockingly irresponsible budget we should be prepared to petition the sovreign for parliament to be disolved and fresh elections announced.

( Does nayone know if this is possible ? )

The case would be that the government has no electoral mandate to bind future parliaments and sell the British people out top debt slavery.

[Man in a Shed]

Tim - If Labour reveal a shockingly irresponsible budget we should be prepared to petition the sovereign for parliament to be dissolved and fresh elections announced.

( Does anyone know if this is possible ? )

The case would be that the government has no electoral mandate to bind future parliaments and sell the British people out top debt slavery.

[Norm Brainer]

Tim - If Labour reveal a shockingly irresponsible budget we should be prepared to petition the sovereign for parliament to be dissolved and fresh elections announced

Define "shockingly irresponsible" ... have we not had that already? or at least nearly there so much that one that is that bad won't look as bad as it should because it's not that much worse (if that makes sense)

There's a risk in being labelled the "do nothing tories" if they stand aside and just let the labour flamethrowers roam free.

[RichardJ]

"You genuinely believe that Gordon Brown and others would deliberately damage the country to make things difficult for the Tories in goverment."

Just Gordon Brown. The man has issues. He's unable to admit he's made mistakes and insists on blaming everything on everyone else.

[resident leftie]

Posted by: Steve Tierney | January 26, 2009 at 12:30

The trouble is, if we had any faith in him whatsoever we might even back his wild gambling. But we mostly just think he's a buffoon, way out of his depth and desperately trying to survive. Nor are any of the things he's doing the "right" measures, In My Humble Opinion.

You (or the Tory front bench) ARE backing him.

[David Sergeant]

Resident lefty, this site regularly produces examples of a major political sport, that is pretending Cameron has said something he hasn't or ignoring the fact he has said something in order get excited and bitch about him. But your wild generalisation that "the Tory front bench ARE backing him [Brown]" reaks of desperation. Just give up, huh, Blair and Brown have demonstrated beyond doubt that Labour are incapable of running the country. I suggest you join the Lib/Dems or UKIP or something and try to get them to learn how to run things.

[pp]

Oh lefty - you are so funny...

First everything is the fault of a tory government from more than a decade ago - nothing to do with the labour government we have had since...
Or is is all the fault of america today? or 'the world' or 'badly run banks'? - I guess all we know for sure is that it really, really isn't gordon browns fault -- he'll probably blame each one of us personally, in turn, before he admits he did anything wrong.

Anyway.. so everything labour have done wrong so far is the fault of the tories and now you are preparing the ground to say that the ongoing and future failures are the tories fault too.

Amazing power for an opposition ! just imagine what they could do in government - wow!

[Felixstowe Fiddler]

A vote of confidence is a complete waste of time - the only good thing about one is that it would force Gordon Brown to turn up in the Commons and defend himself.
In 1979, a vote of confidence brought down James Callaghan, thanks to the Tories, Lib Dems, Ulster Unionsits and the hari-kari of the Scottish Nationalists. But don't forget, Callaghan was leading a minority government - today Brown has an OVERALL majority of more than 60 and that increases when you take into account the two Sinn Fein members who have never taken their seats.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: the Tories cannot win a majority of more than 150, despite what the polls say. To do so, would mean huge gains in Scotland and the north of England that simply are not going to happen. I think Cameron will lead the largest party in the House, but I'm not convinced that it will be the landslide the eternal optimists predict.
Anything less than an overall majority of 30 would hold Cameron to the vagaries of the parliamentary arithmetic and the propensity of Tory MPs to die when the party is in government, throwing up by-election losses.
Just don't get carried away.

[The Bishop swine]

You genuinely believe that Gordon Brown and others would deliberately damage the country to make things difficult for the Tories in goverment."

I Do, maybe they might think they are improving it but they are damaging it right now and they have been deliberately destroying the Union. If they wreck us in the right way we will easier for Europe to pull us into their Union. They are quite open about it, take a look at our currency isn't the motif on the back of the coppers the union carved up ?
Some of them are even proposing we pay the Terrorist victors for the loss of their Kin.
Lefty spends so much time talking with reasonable and sane people on this site he has not been taking notice of Labours wreckers mentality.

[Felixstowe Fiddler]

My comment above assumed total commitment by Labour activists to get the vote out. If the following comment I've just found on the LabourHome story about the ComRes poll reflects a general mood in the Labour Party, perhaps a good working majority is possible:

"We have a leader (and pretty much an entire Cabinet) with no vision for the future, but who simply puts sticking plasters on problems by a daily basis.
"Even if we won the next general election, what exactly does our party plan to do in a 4th term?"

Oh dear!

[resident leftie]

Posted by: pp | January 26, 2009 at 14:25

First everything is the fault of a tory government from more than a decade ago - nothing to do with the labour government we have had since...
Or is is all the fault of america today? or 'the world' or 'badly run banks'? - I guess all we know for sure is that it really, really isn't gordon browns fault -- he'll probably blame each one of us personally, in turn, before he admits he did anything wrong.

No, as I've made absolutely clear I believe that this government is culpable in continuing dangerous Thatcherite policies of deregulation, instead of taking a geniunely socially democratic approach to things. Of course the recession is global - do you dispute that? Will we be hit worse than Germany and similar economies? Probably. As Darling admitted, the reason we are likely to be hit somewhat harder than other economies is because the banking sector has been hit the worst, and the City is a dangerously large part of the economy.

The solution to an unsucessful center-right approach to the financial sector is not a a right wing government who will abandon many of the goods things this government has done. We've had 10 years of solid growth and very high standards of living. Compare that to any previous Tory government. And when Cameron starts his dangerous talk about the IMF and bankrupt Britain, take a look what Ken Clarke has to say about it.

Anyway.. so everything labour have done wrong so far is the fault of the tories and now you are preparing the ground to say that the ongoing and future failures are the tories fault too.

No, I am saying, succeed or fail, the bank bailouts and other measures were supported by the Tories. Even the VAT decrease was supported by Ken Clarke.

[The Bishop swine]

" If the following comment I've just found on the LabourHome story about the ComRes poll reflects a general mood in the Labour Party, perhaps a good working majority is possible:"

I can't even access Labour-home that is how non-democratic the Labour party is. I would not mind but the fact is other than speaking my mind I have done nothing wrong. At one point my system informed me that my security settings prevented the installation of a plug-in and since then I am barred. So why were they trying admend my machine?

[dcj]

Small logical problem, Resident Leftie.

You're now saying that the difficulties we are having (far worse in Britain than elsewhere and not due to the banking sector but to McBroon's let-debt-rip and spend money like water policies as Chancellor) are due to the evil work of the Tories.

But the Tories came out of office 12 years ago come May. Therefore the actions of a Government, on your analysis, take time to work through.

So if it takes 12 years for policies, harmful or otherwise, to take effect, how come McBroon can take credit for what you describe as " ... 10 years of solid growth and very high standards of living"? Or pehaps you're saying that it was the wonders of Jim Callaghan that led to these golden ten years?

However, if it is all the fault of the wicked Tories and the wicked banks, who scrapped the old efficient regulatory system the day after he entered No 11? A Mr Broon, wasn't it? And who has let banks lend and lend without making any changes to his regulatory system? Who encouaged an unprecedented growth in debt, national and personal? McCavity?

Yes - we need a genuine right-wing Government that will indeed undo everything ZanuLab has done. You say "all the good" - I am very hard put to think of one single good thing Labour have achieved in their years of power. So we will not only have to pick up where we left off in 1997, as other writers have noted we will have to spend our first term cleaning up ZanuLab's mess in education, the health service, the economy ... everything.

Sorry - in fairness McBroon did do one good thing- GiftAid, and while we rightly blame him for mismanagement I think Gift Aid, like Wilson's Open University, will stand as the one good thing from an appalling Government.

[The Bishop swine]

"No, I am saying, succeed or fail, the bank bailouts and other measures were supported by the Tories. Even the VAT decrease was supported by Ken Clarke."

Yes, because we want to inherit something rather than by opposing your dangerous plans, further spook the market. You can bet your boots we would have not done what you did but we are supporters of Britain, we do not want to add to our own problems by telling the Market what insanity you have planned.
Any Tax cut is pleasing most especially one that impacts Europe. This next election will decide if we go into Europe in a fuller way or we raise the drawbridge. Do Labour really think they can win this election most especially in the light of the new red-Tory dawn. All we need is the SUN to jump ship like the Rat it is and you will be sunk deep under the weight of moral repugnance. Just let us catch one of you “lords” with his nose in the Trough, or one of your Female “list selected MP’s” with her Knockers out. Labour are going to feel a brunt of the Nation wrath. And quite right to, for your anti-royalism, your non Anglicanism and your contempt for the Union.

[dcj]

Bishop - they've been caught with their noses in the trough since Ecclestone. Hinduja, Lord Mandelson of Rhumba and the Building Society, Cherie and her "perks", now the Four Lords ... only trouble is the BlairbrownBroadcasting Corporation tends to play it down as far as it can and bury it amongst the "Government-is-Wonderful" drivel.

[pp]

Lefty - if darling has admitted that we will be uniquely badly hit, maybe he would tell brown who insisted that we were uniquely well placed to weather the storm.

This is well worth a look http://www.order-order.com/2009/01/dithering-de-regulator-becomes.html.

I would be better placed to 'weather the storm' if brown hadn't stolen all my money and flushed it down the toilet - however being better at economics than Brown (which is nothing special, so are 90% of the worlds population...) I have been prudent - unfortunately my prudence is subtantially undermined by Brown being profligate on my behalf (and on behalf of generations to come).

I assume the cabinet have spent all their savings, remortgaged their houses and maxed out their credit cards, like they want us to do? After all they have their gold plated pensions to keep them warm till the end of their days...

[dcj]

I looked up the reference from pp:

"by moving away from the old blanket approach, of 100 per cent form-filling and 100 per cent inspection that is inefficient and wasteful of your time, to a new approach based on risk… And I believe, too, we should consider how we can continue to extend our risk-based approach, applying the concept of risk not just to the enforcement of regulation, but also to the design and indeed to the decision as to whether to regulate at all… And we will take the fight on deregulation to Europe.” McBroon, 5 june 2006

So Resident Leftie says: “No, as I've made absolutely clear I believe that this government is culpable in continuing dangerous Thatcherite policies of deregulation, instead of taking a genuinely socially democratic approach to things.”

But McBroon himself admits he didn’t continue Thatcher’s policies – he took a “new approach based on risk.” So whose fault is it?

Or should we have gone back to the genuinely social democratic policies which were so successful the IMP came to visit us in the last Labour Government?

As Eric said to Ernie, “Get out of that one.”

You know, RL, GB has done something I never thought possible. I’m nostalgic for Denis Healey.

[dcj]

Sorry - IMF. I blame the keyboard.

[Andrew]

There is somebody who controls all the key elements of the state and can DEMAND a General Election this year, but it would only be possible if the economy is truly terrible, bank runs and a breakdown of law and order.

Her Majesty.

And any resulting constitutional crisis caused would be outweighed by the chance for public opinion to be expressed at a time of much worse economic crisis. There'll be no jobs, no house sales and obviously, no way to renew Trident.

[bill acraman]

The Iceland PM has resigned today because of the cock up there. Brown should follwo his example but wont unless forced to (He wont be shamed into it).
I agree that every shadow should call for a general election every time he is on his feet in the commons.
Oliver Cromwell 1653 about the rump parliament "You have sat too long her for any good you have been doing, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"
In the Chamberlain debate in 1940 Leo Amery quoted these words in the debate that destroyed Chamberlain, the only vote of No Confidence ever to bring down a Prime Minister. The vote was not lost but there were so many who did not support him that he had to go. Ditto now, please, with Brown.

[David_at_Home]

HMQ will do her duty in accordance with the conventions of the constitution, as she has done every day since she became the Monarch. Personally I think she is a fantastic Lady and has been a wonderful Head of State. We, as a nation, should try to live up to her ideals of service and duty.

At present there is absolutely no constitutional reason whatsoever why the Queen should dismiss the government or dissolve parliament and trigger a General Election.

So the Tories will just have to bide their time. The waiting period could be well spent on preparing some well thought out coherent policies. The latest naive and ill informed pronouncements by George Osborne and Frances Maude indicate that there is much preparatory work to be done.

[Patsy Sergeant]

Resident leftie @ 10.22 - 'You genuinely believe that Gordon Brown and others would deliberately damage the country to make things difficult for the Tories in government.

Yes!, and it is called political vindictiveness!! And if Mr. Brown thinks our conclusions are unfair, he only has himself to blame, since he has been consistently spiteful, unreasonable, inaccurate if not actually bullying, when addressing Mr. Cameron in the HoC's over a long period of time. One realises that the incumbents of the HoC are quite often childish, and maybe sometimes offensive or rude, but Brown has gone way beyond that for months! So to screw the country up, before leaving the job - on purpose well.....

[T. England]

Brown is like a compulsive gambler & to make matters worse he loves to give our hard earned money away to anyone he see’s fit, no matter if we are skint & can’t afford it, the man just can’t help himself.
You can’t but help think that, Brown practically gave our gold away, he gives money away overseas left right & centre when we need every penny over here & now with his biggest squander of all, the bank bailout, I really am starting to believe that he has some sort of Marxist agenda where by he’s on his own little mission to redistribute OUR wealth!!!

Brown could be the biggest danger to Britain since the Nazis.

[prziloczek]

I cannot resist quoting this: "It was on this unpromising scene that the financial crisis...burst.........The British budget was clearly out of balance, with the government doing little to solve the problem..." There was a huge projected budget deficit of £150,000,000.
So much for the crisis when Labour first came to real power just before 1931. So, when George Osborne says "Labour have done it again," he is completely right!

[The Bishop swine]

"There is somebody who controls all the key elements of the state and can DEMAND a General Election this year, but it would only be possible if the economy is truly terrible, bank runs and a breakdown of law and order.

Her Majesty."

I know how angry you are, but I really don't think QE2 should soil herself even to bring this bunch down. Of course after the election we can show her the respect the Pinko Stalinist-trots have not, but I know if she tried to dissolve parliament they would have her head. Maybe not literally but certainly they would further castrate the monarchy. After the election one of our first moves must be to restore the crown symbolically lets have a campaign of returning the crown symbols to their rightful places. Post offices etc should be the very first places to get a right royal makeover.
God save the Queen.

[Norm Brainer]

Brown could be the biggest danger to Britain since the Nazis.

Whilst you have just fallen foul of Godwin's law and so we should now stop the thread, the difference between them is that they were on the outside trying to get in control, and brown is on the inside and we're trying to get him out.

[Norm Brainer]

Brown could be the biggest danger to Britain since the Nazis.

Whilst you have just fallen foul of Godwin's law and so we should now stop the thread, the difference between them is that they were on the outside trying to get in control, and brown is on the inside and we're trying to get him out.

[Nizhinsky]

You'd think wouldn't you that having caused all this mess in the first place you'd go to the country to see if they think you're up to cleaning it all up.

If Gordon was an accountant who'd been embezzling your assets you wouldn't keep him on to put your finances back in order would you?

[T. England]

Norm Brainer
"The rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that one arising is increasingly probable. It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate,"

Surely when we are talking about a party that could bring Britain to its knees I can be forgiven for using an appropriate statement, just this once?

[Alex Swanson]

"HMQ will do her duty in accordance with the conventions of the constitution, as she has done every day since she became the Monarch. "

No she hasn't. It's her job under the Constitution to protect the citizenry from arbitrary and unjust laws, and if required to dismiss unworthy ministers. Well, we've been subjected to plenty of injustice over the years (not all from Labour, either), and we've certainly seen many ministers come and go who should never even have been in Parliament, and what has she ever done? Nothing whatever.

"Personally I think she is a fantastic Lady and has been a wonderful Head of State. We, as a nation, should try to live up to her ideals of service and duty."

Mug

[David_at_Home]

Mug to you, Alex.

HMQ has always operated within the constituently conventions. I agree that many governments in the past 50 years, both Tory and Labour, have done foolish things, sometimes immoral things and even introduced undesirable laws. This is the fault of us, the electorate, for voting in such governments. Democracy requires a concerned involved and informed electorate and the Monarch can only be the last line of defence against tyranny. If the Monarchy were more concerned in government then our democracy would be fundamentally undermined. I’m sure HMQ understands this and it is a pity that you do not.

[Alex Swanson]

"If the Monarchy were more concerned in government then our democracy would be fundamentally undermined."

The monarch has a specific duty to protect the ctizenry against abuse of political power. That's her job under the consitution. If you think it's wrong that an unelected person has this responsibility, that it is a fair point of view, but right now she does have it, and she does nothing.

"I’m sure HMQ understands this"

Why are you sure? Have you discussed it with her? Have you any evidence at all to support the idea that she would do anything, ever, to protect rights - such as the right to a secret ballot in an election - which have ALREADY during this government been trampled on?

"and it is a pity that you do not."

No, it's you who don't understand. I understand how the constitution is supposed to work, and you clearly don't.

This government has ALREADY done things which make it unfit for office and which should have had laws vetoed and ministers sacked, and the Queen has done nothing.

[David Bouvier]

I wonder if the delay to the budget - which can only have miles of red ink, downgraded forecasts and tax rises - is allow for a sneaky election in March/April?

How long before he would have declare it - its 6-8 weeks isn't it?

[John Evans]

If Labour were deliberately setting out to "queer Cameron's pitch" they couldn't do better than they are now.

After the election, the Conservatives should hammer this message home relentlessly, perhaps even sending a dossier to the police. The public should be made aware of what these traitors are doing.